You can march and march and march. You can protest every night for a year. I do not believe you can end racism, though, simply by demanding that it go away.
If that is the goal, it won't be reached.
But, if the goal is to root out racism and brutality from our police forces, that can be achieved. If you are saying, we are going to be out here protesting every night until our police forces are cleaned up, you've got a goal that can be achieved.
Not that we are making much progress so far. I heard one source say only eight police officers have been fired. This after more than a month of protesting.
You have to say what you want, and no one is saying it. We should investigate every officer in the land, background checking them, interviewing their co-workers, past employers, family, etc. Those with racist tendencies will have expressed themselves to others, and you can track them down. You can also give them situationals, asking them if they would use violence in those situations, and root out a lot of bad officers that way.
We are better than a month into this. We haven't yet, as a society, figured out what needs to be done. It is time we did, lest all this marching in the streets goes for naught.
Tuesday, June 30, 2020
Monday, June 29, 2020
David Leavitt Leads the Fight Against Plea Bargaining
I'm much for David Leavitt over Sean Reyes for Utah attorney general, and let me tell you one reason why: Plea bargaining. Leavitt doesn't like it. He wants to reform our social justice system.
Think of it, the Constitution calls for a trial by jury. Leavitt speaks of how when writing that great document, our founders didn't give up this part of governing, instead reserving to themselves, the people, the right of making decisions in court cases.
Back in those colonial days, plea bargaining was rare, though there are reports of witch trials in which accused witches were told they would live if they confessed, but would be executed if they did not. Being's how we already know witch trials were often on trumped up charges, and were poor examples of justice, we should not be surprised that those trials were one of the first places where plea bargaining was to be found.
Plea bargaining started seeping into America's courtrooms in the 1800s, and then began to gain real footage in the 20th Century. Still, the practice was largely considered inappropriate until the late 1960s. How about that? You might not have known it was so recent.
And, today, about 50 years later? The great majority of all cases are plea bargained -- the great, great majority.
Of all candidates for offices all across this land of America, I wonder if there is one standing so staunchly against plea bargaining as is our own David Leavitt here in Utah. This is a chance to revert our government back to the principles of the Constitution and to make Utah the lead state where it happens.
If you are a constitutionalist, voting for Leavitt will serve you well. On the flip side, it also serves you well if you are for social justice. Those accused of crimes often are pushed to confess even when they are not guilty because it is made to be the easy way out. That isn't right. You shouldn't be pushed into a conviction you might not be guilty of.
Think of it: Just in the last 50 or so years have we fallen to this. Now comes a candidate for attorney general who is fighting against the practice. How can we not support such a person with our vote?
Think of it, the Constitution calls for a trial by jury. Leavitt speaks of how when writing that great document, our founders didn't give up this part of governing, instead reserving to themselves, the people, the right of making decisions in court cases.
Back in those colonial days, plea bargaining was rare, though there are reports of witch trials in which accused witches were told they would live if they confessed, but would be executed if they did not. Being's how we already know witch trials were often on trumped up charges, and were poor examples of justice, we should not be surprised that those trials were one of the first places where plea bargaining was to be found.
Plea bargaining started seeping into America's courtrooms in the 1800s, and then began to gain real footage in the 20th Century. Still, the practice was largely considered inappropriate until the late 1960s. How about that? You might not have known it was so recent.
And, today, about 50 years later? The great majority of all cases are plea bargained -- the great, great majority.
Of all candidates for offices all across this land of America, I wonder if there is one standing so staunchly against plea bargaining as is our own David Leavitt here in Utah. This is a chance to revert our government back to the principles of the Constitution and to make Utah the lead state where it happens.
If you are a constitutionalist, voting for Leavitt will serve you well. On the flip side, it also serves you well if you are for social justice. Those accused of crimes often are pushed to confess even when they are not guilty because it is made to be the easy way out. That isn't right. You shouldn't be pushed into a conviction you might not be guilty of.
Think of it: Just in the last 50 or so years have we fallen to this. Now comes a candidate for attorney general who is fighting against the practice. How can we not support such a person with our vote?
Sunday, June 28, 2020
If We'd Done What Needs Done When it Needed Done, They'd be Gone
More than a month has passed, and still the one thing that should be done, has not been done.
Well, what needs done? Isn't it that we need to rid our police forces from such officers as Derek Chauvin (the officer who killed Floyd)? Now, how do you go about that? Just how do you go about getting rid of such officers before they have chance to kill someone else?
Is that such a hard question to answer?
Of course not. Or, at least it shouldn't be. If you want to get rid of such officers, you first find out who they are. And, how are you going to find out who they are? About the only way possible is to investigate their backgrounds. Interview family, friends, past coworkers, past classmates, etc.
And, interview the officers, themselves. Ask them if black lives matter. Ask them if they can bring themselves to verbalize just those three words. Tell them that you are not reading anything into those three words other than what they say. It doesn't mean they back the Black Lives Matter organization. It simply means just what it says, that black lives matter.
If they can't say it, yes, dismiss them from the force. It's a red flag too large to ignore.
Give them a scenario: A person breaks free while being arrested. He stumbles and falls. He is not threatening you with a gun and not brandishing it. But, as he falls, a gun spills on the ground. As he gets up, he picks the gun up, as well. He still isn't waving it at you or brandishing it, but it is now in his hand. He appears, though, simply scared and intent on trying to escape. Do you shoot, and do you shoot to kill?
If they would kill in such a situation, yes, remove them from the force.
It has been more than a month since George Floyd was killed. Protesters have been on the streets every day since, demanding something be done. Yes, we've had a month. Every officer in the land could have been investigated by now, if we had done what needs to be done.
Well, what needs done? Isn't it that we need to rid our police forces from such officers as Derek Chauvin (the officer who killed Floyd)? Now, how do you go about that? Just how do you go about getting rid of such officers before they have chance to kill someone else?
Is that such a hard question to answer?
Of course not. Or, at least it shouldn't be. If you want to get rid of such officers, you first find out who they are. And, how are you going to find out who they are? About the only way possible is to investigate their backgrounds. Interview family, friends, past coworkers, past classmates, etc.
And, interview the officers, themselves. Ask them if black lives matter. Ask them if they can bring themselves to verbalize just those three words. Tell them that you are not reading anything into those three words other than what they say. It doesn't mean they back the Black Lives Matter organization. It simply means just what it says, that black lives matter.
If they can't say it, yes, dismiss them from the force. It's a red flag too large to ignore.
Give them a scenario: A person breaks free while being arrested. He stumbles and falls. He is not threatening you with a gun and not brandishing it. But, as he falls, a gun spills on the ground. As he gets up, he picks the gun up, as well. He still isn't waving it at you or brandishing it, but it is now in his hand. He appears, though, simply scared and intent on trying to escape. Do you shoot, and do you shoot to kill?
If they would kill in such a situation, yes, remove them from the force.
It has been more than a month since George Floyd was killed. Protesters have been on the streets every day since, demanding something be done. Yes, we've had a month. Every officer in the land could have been investigated by now, if we had done what needs to be done.
Saturday, June 27, 2020
We All have Faults, and Having Slaves is Indeed a Fault
Go ahead and take those Robert E. Lee statues down. Lee's claim in history is for being commander of the Confederate army. Not much more than that is he famous for.
And, remove Robert Lee Durham's name from Durham Hall at Southern Virginia University. Durham reportedly was an "explicit, public, proactive" advocate of white supremacy.
Why name a dorm hall or anything else after him?
But, much of this toppling of statues and cleansing of names off buildings is not necessary. We don't live in a world of perfect people. No, it isn't good that some of our icons were slaveholders. Bad on them. Still, if they served for good in great and measurable ways, do not judge them just by their weaknesses. Let therm be remembered for the good they did.
The righteous become the wicked when looked at through magnifying glasses. Look close enough, and you'll find fault in all of us. You, yourself, will have faults.
Should we replace the Star-Spangled Banner? Francis Scott Key was a slave owner. More than that, the third verse contains racist language. I say, No. Take that third verse out, or rewrite it, but it is a wonderful song. Change that third verse to be a tribute to black people, perhaps, but do not get rid of the National Anthem.
And, remove Robert Lee Durham's name from Durham Hall at Southern Virginia University. Durham reportedly was an "explicit, public, proactive" advocate of white supremacy.
Why name a dorm hall or anything else after him?
But, much of this toppling of statues and cleansing of names off buildings is not necessary. We don't live in a world of perfect people. No, it isn't good that some of our icons were slaveholders. Bad on them. Still, if they served for good in great and measurable ways, do not judge them just by their weaknesses. Let therm be remembered for the good they did.
The righteous become the wicked when looked at through magnifying glasses. Look close enough, and you'll find fault in all of us. You, yourself, will have faults.
Should we replace the Star-Spangled Banner? Francis Scott Key was a slave owner. More than that, the third verse contains racist language. I say, No. Take that third verse out, or rewrite it, but it is a wonderful song. Change that third verse to be a tribute to black people, perhaps, but do not get rid of the National Anthem.
With a Bullet from Close Range, Police Kill a Handcuffed Chad Breinholt
He was handcuffed, in police custody, in West Valley City Police headquarters. "You are about to die, my friend," one of the officers says. One shot, fired from close range, and the body cam then shows Chad Breinholt's body slumped on the floor, a pool of blood next to his head.
Justified homicide? An officer can be heard screaming that Breinholt had gotten hold of his gun. In a video where another officer explains what happened, he describes that Beinholt was, "grabbing hold of the officer's gun," with one of his handcuffed hands. "His hand is on the officer's gun," he explains, and we must assume Breinholt's hand was on the gun in the officer's holster. The narrating officer says another officer then enters the room. "Mr. Breinholt's hand remains on the gun,' the narrating officer says, "and the officer fires a single shot."
If Breinholt got his hand on the officer's holster, would he have been able to pull it out with a handcuffed hand? Officers were right on him, wrestling him, not giving him room to maneuver even if he hadn't been handcuffed. How is he going to pull the gun upward -- six inches or however much -- out of the holster?
And, they cried, "You are about to die, my friend," and shot him dead.
Think back to just earlier in the video, immediately as the scuffle is about to commence, when the one officer says, "You don't want to fight with me; You definitely don't want to fight with those guys," and he points to the officers behind him.
Was that a threat? Did they not fulfill it?
We are in the last days of June now. The killing was in August. And, yet the district attorney's office is still investigating the killing.
Unjustified police killings do happen. Unjustified homicides. Cases of police brutality. This is one of them. The handcuffed Chad Breinholt did not need to be killed.
Justified homicide? An officer can be heard screaming that Breinholt had gotten hold of his gun. In a video where another officer explains what happened, he describes that Beinholt was, "grabbing hold of the officer's gun," with one of his handcuffed hands. "His hand is on the officer's gun," he explains, and we must assume Breinholt's hand was on the gun in the officer's holster. The narrating officer says another officer then enters the room. "Mr. Breinholt's hand remains on the gun,' the narrating officer says, "and the officer fires a single shot."
If Breinholt got his hand on the officer's holster, would he have been able to pull it out with a handcuffed hand? Officers were right on him, wrestling him, not giving him room to maneuver even if he hadn't been handcuffed. How is he going to pull the gun upward -- six inches or however much -- out of the holster?
And, they cried, "You are about to die, my friend," and shot him dead.
Think back to just earlier in the video, immediately as the scuffle is about to commence, when the one officer says, "You don't want to fight with me; You definitely don't want to fight with those guys," and he points to the officers behind him.
Was that a threat? Did they not fulfill it?
We are in the last days of June now. The killing was in August. And, yet the district attorney's office is still investigating the killing.
Unjustified police killings do happen. Unjustified homicides. Cases of police brutality. This is one of them. The handcuffed Chad Breinholt did not need to be killed.
Friday, June 26, 2020
Temperatures soar to 100 in Siberian Town in the Arctic
Wildfires in no less of a place than the Arctic. Last Saturday, temperatures in one Siberian town topped 100 degrees. Yes, you heard that right: 100 degrees, possibly the hottest temperature ever in the Arctic -- and this coming in the same town that holds the mark for the coldest temperature on record (90 below zero Fahrenheit in 1892). And, since the sun goes never goes down, there is little relief at night.
Last year, wildfires burned up land the size of Kentucky, and this year it is off to an even worse start. And, as the Arctic melts, it exposes decomposed organic material, releasing more greenhouse gases, and that only exacerbates the problem. It is estimated that 240 billion tons of carbon will be released by 2100. The Arctic is already heating twice as fast as the rest of the planet. How will this impact that?
Last year, wildfires burned up land the size of Kentucky, and this year it is off to an even worse start. And, as the Arctic melts, it exposes decomposed organic material, releasing more greenhouse gases, and that only exacerbates the problem. It is estimated that 240 billion tons of carbon will be released by 2100. The Arctic is already heating twice as fast as the rest of the planet. How will this impact that?
A Little Touch-Up for the Star-Spangled Banner
There is discussion calling for replacing the Star-Spangled Banner, since Francis Scott Key was a slave owner and since the third verse speaks ill of "the hireling and slave."
Few men or women are perfect. All have their flaws. No, it is not good that Francis Scott Key was a slave owner, but there remains much good that he did, and writing the Star-Spangled Banner is one of them.
Except for that third verse.
So, what do we do? Rid ourselves of the song? I say, Nay. Instead, remove that third verse. Or, rewrite it.
So, I took my shot at rewriting it. First, the way Key wrote it, it says:
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion,
A home and a country, should leave us no more?
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave,
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Rewriting it, the words now say:
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a country, should leave them no more?
Their blood has washed out our foul footsteps' pollution
Till we confessed of the wrong, of making them hireling and slave
And freed them from terror of flight, and the gloom of the grave
So the star-spangled banner yet in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the freed blacks and the home of the brave.
Few men or women are perfect. All have their flaws. No, it is not good that Francis Scott Key was a slave owner, but there remains much good that he did, and writing the Star-Spangled Banner is one of them.
Except for that third verse.
So, what do we do? Rid ourselves of the song? I say, Nay. Instead, remove that third verse. Or, rewrite it.
So, I took my shot at rewriting it. First, the way Key wrote it, it says:
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion,
A home and a country, should leave us no more?
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave,
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Rewriting it, the words now say:
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a country, should leave them no more?
Their blood has washed out our foul footsteps' pollution
Till we confessed of the wrong, of making them hireling and slave
And freed them from terror of flight, and the gloom of the grave
So the star-spangled banner yet in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the freed blacks and the home of the brave.
Thursday, June 25, 2020
Let's Reopen the Stands to Sports Fans and Concert Goers
We need to reopen our sporting events and concerts. What -- do we suppose we can forever keep them our stars from performing to empty stands? We do not know how long this will last, this pandemic with its promise of a second wave.
We need a plan, a way that allows us to throw back open the stands to the sports-hungry fans and concert goers.
And, one maybe workable solution is to test every fan before letting them attend. That would take a lot of testing and require a lot of test kits, to be sure, but it would seem possible if we are willing to gear up for it. So, here's how it would work: About four days before the game or concert, you go test for the virus. When your results are back, the hospital (or testing center) issues you a slip saying so, and you present it with your ticket when you show up at the gate.
The athletes and performers, of course, would be under the same restrictions.
The virus is deadly, but we must not let it conquer us. If everybody entering the event has tested negative within recent days, it should be safe.
And, with so many people being tested and quarantined when they test positive, this effort might contain the virus several times beyond what we've done so far. The number of cases would obviously soar at first, but with it being identified as quickly as it spread, it would likely be contained. Those who attended sporting events weekly would be tested weekly, so as soon as they got the virus, they would be taken off the streets.
We need a plan, a way that allows us to throw back open the stands to the sports-hungry fans and concert goers.
And, one maybe workable solution is to test every fan before letting them attend. That would take a lot of testing and require a lot of test kits, to be sure, but it would seem possible if we are willing to gear up for it. So, here's how it would work: About four days before the game or concert, you go test for the virus. When your results are back, the hospital (or testing center) issues you a slip saying so, and you present it with your ticket when you show up at the gate.
The athletes and performers, of course, would be under the same restrictions.
The virus is deadly, but we must not let it conquer us. If everybody entering the event has tested negative within recent days, it should be safe.
And, with so many people being tested and quarantined when they test positive, this effort might contain the virus several times beyond what we've done so far. The number of cases would obviously soar at first, but with it being identified as quickly as it spread, it would likely be contained. Those who attended sporting events weekly would be tested weekly, so as soon as they got the virus, they would be taken off the streets.
Wednesday, June 24, 2020
The Right to Meet in Religious Activities Should Not be Curtailed
Let the freedom to gather in religious circles be restored, and let it never be threatened again.
I listened to a talk given by Elder David A. Bednar, an apostle in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He noted the importance of being able to meet, religiously, and how that right has been challenged during the COVID-19 crisis.
So, let us consider on the words of the First Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Perhaps with all the care given to avoid person-to-person interaction, those restrictions should have come more as as encouragements, and less as laws. I wonder if no one should be arrested, fined or punished for gathering in church settings. Often, the activities that were curtailed were things that could have been done while complying with safety precautions, such as performing baptisms.
I wonder on restrictions on the size of the congregation, if we are still allowing full religious rights to meet if we limit the number, for the congregants are still allowed the freedom to meet, even though it might require meeting in a series of meetings instead of a single one. I do not know. But, it does seem the right to meet at all should be preserved.
I listened to a talk given by Elder David A. Bednar, an apostle in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He noted the importance of being able to meet, religiously, and how that right has been challenged during the COVID-19 crisis.
So, let us consider on the words of the First Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Perhaps with all the care given to avoid person-to-person interaction, those restrictions should have come more as as encouragements, and less as laws. I wonder if no one should be arrested, fined or punished for gathering in church settings. Often, the activities that were curtailed were things that could have been done while complying with safety precautions, such as performing baptisms.
I wonder on restrictions on the size of the congregation, if we are still allowing full religious rights to meet if we limit the number, for the congregants are still allowed the freedom to meet, even though it might require meeting in a series of meetings instead of a single one. I do not know. But, it does seem the right to meet at all should be preserved.
Tuesday, June 23, 2020
Now is the Time to End Voter Discrimination Against People of Color
I join with those who suggest now is a time for voter reform in America, to end any discrimination against those of color.
Ours is a day when we have determined to end discrimination in our institutions, in our government. When I write of how after the Civil War, laws were created to catch African Americans in trite and trumped up offenses, so they could be sent to jail and then reintroduced as prison laborers, and that the practice continued until about 1940, someone writes me back saying that was 80 years ago, as if to say the day of such discrimination has long since passed.
What, then, of our disenfranchising the vote of minorities? What of closing polls in their neighborhoods so they are forced to jaunt across town if they want to vote? What of under-staffing their polling places, so they have to wait longer than they have time to? What of gerrymandering their voting districts?
And, there may be other ways the vote of minorities is marginalized. No, we have not left our discrimination behind. With an election coming up, we should be scrambling to ensure that these practices end.
Justice for George Floyd includes this.
Ours is a day when we have determined to end discrimination in our institutions, in our government. When I write of how after the Civil War, laws were created to catch African Americans in trite and trumped up offenses, so they could be sent to jail and then reintroduced as prison laborers, and that the practice continued until about 1940, someone writes me back saying that was 80 years ago, as if to say the day of such discrimination has long since passed.
What, then, of our disenfranchising the vote of minorities? What of closing polls in their neighborhoods so they are forced to jaunt across town if they want to vote? What of under-staffing their polling places, so they have to wait longer than they have time to? What of gerrymandering their voting districts?
And, there may be other ways the vote of minorities is marginalized. No, we have not left our discrimination behind. With an election coming up, we should be scrambling to ensure that these practices end.
Justice for George Floyd includes this.
Monday, June 22, 2020
Now is the Time to Rally Behind the Good Officers
Now is the time to rally those officers who are good, to praise them and encourage them. More than ever, we need good officers. More than ever, we do not want to lose them. Lest they become disillusioned by the hatred going on and resign, we need to be spreading love for them.
Now is the Time to Call for Good Officers
I have a dream. I dream that our police can become one of the strongest parts of the American fabric. I have a dream that we can root out the racism, and root out the police brutality.
Look at so many of the officers, how they take pride in serving the public. Theirs is a great and wonderful ambition. Police work can and does attract this type of person.
Now should be the moment we are calling on the best of people to apply for positions and to become police officers. A call should be going out, a plea for their help. Rather than gutting our police, we should be building it like we have never built it before.
With all the wondering what should be done -- shall we ban kneeling on their necks or whatever -- this is one step that is being overlooked. But, if we have bad police officers, that won't be corrected until we replace them with good officers. Now is the time to call for good officers.
Look at so many of the officers, how they take pride in serving the public. Theirs is a great and wonderful ambition. Police work can and does attract this type of person.
Now should be the moment we are calling on the best of people to apply for positions and to become police officers. A call should be going out, a plea for their help. Rather than gutting our police, we should be building it like we have never built it before.
With all the wondering what should be done -- shall we ban kneeling on their necks or whatever -- this is one step that is being overlooked. But, if we have bad police officers, that won't be corrected until we replace them with good officers. Now is the time to call for good officers.
Sunday, June 21, 2020
Do We Just Dump the Responsibility on Social Workers Without Asking?
Shouldn't we ask them? There's this effort to "defund the police," by moving some of the work to social services departments and moving that amount of funding according over to the new department. Shouldn't we ask the social services workers if that is what they want, if they want this additional responsibility?
I read a post from one police officer (Alexandra Parker) saying, "Most 'social services' won't enter a potentially dangerous situation until Police tell them 'its okay, we made the scene safe, come on in.' "
With all the effort and focus from protesters to "defund the police," it occurs to me no one is even asking the social workers if they want the extra responsibility. I hear no word from the social workers, themselves. If we are going to shunt the responsibility to them, shouldn't we first ask them to see if they are even willing to take on the charge?
I read a post from one police officer (Alexandra Parker) saying, "Most 'social services' won't enter a potentially dangerous situation until Police tell them 'its okay, we made the scene safe, come on in.' "
With all the effort and focus from protesters to "defund the police," it occurs to me no one is even asking the social workers if they want the extra responsibility. I hear no word from the social workers, themselves. If we are going to shunt the responsibility to them, shouldn't we first ask them to see if they are even willing to take on the charge?
Saturday, June 20, 2020
Be Careful About Giving Up the Choke Hold
We should be careful before we ban choke holds. We should consider what we are doing. A neck hold is a common technique used when wrestling. I would imagine, most people when wrestling use neck holds.
And, therein is why we should be careful of banning them. When the officer is wrestling down a suspect, if he is afraid of putting a lock on that suspect's neck, he is deprived of one of the most helpful tools in wrestling.
Now, there is some current thinking that we should encourage our officers to be more willing to wrestle rather than using weapons. There is danger to that as the gun can be grabbed from the officer's holster while they wrestle. But, if we do encourage more wrestling, let it not go unnoticed that if the officer cannot toss his arm around the suspect's neck, he will be at disadvantage as they wrestle.
If we are to have a law against choke holds, let it be that choke holds shall not last more than 30 seconds or some such -- and I do not know that I favor even that.
It might be argued, and the law even written so, that there is a difference between neck holds and choke holds. A neck hold is but a lock on the neck, while a choke hold restricts the breathing. Even allowing this, the officer is going to be more apprehensive to use a neck hold for fear it will be perceived as a choke hold, or for fear that it might slip into a choke hold.
And, therein is why we should be careful of banning them. When the officer is wrestling down a suspect, if he is afraid of putting a lock on that suspect's neck, he is deprived of one of the most helpful tools in wrestling.
Now, there is some current thinking that we should encourage our officers to be more willing to wrestle rather than using weapons. There is danger to that as the gun can be grabbed from the officer's holster while they wrestle. But, if we do encourage more wrestling, let it not go unnoticed that if the officer cannot toss his arm around the suspect's neck, he will be at disadvantage as they wrestle.
If we are to have a law against choke holds, let it be that choke holds shall not last more than 30 seconds or some such -- and I do not know that I favor even that.
It might be argued, and the law even written so, that there is a difference between neck holds and choke holds. A neck hold is but a lock on the neck, while a choke hold restricts the breathing. Even allowing this, the officer is going to be more apprehensive to use a neck hold for fear it will be perceived as a choke hold, or for fear that it might slip into a choke hold.
Friday, June 19, 2020
Ditch the Electronic Machines and Go Back to Paper Balloting Only
Does now occur to me that mail-in ballots are paper ballots. A good system requires paper balloting. When they are electronic, and also do not have paper print-outs, they can be hacked. We know the Russians targeted election systems in all 50 states in 2016. So, if we ban mail-in voting, that means more electronic voting and makes it easier for the Russians to get at us.
I believe something like a dozen states (representing about 150 Electoral College votes) are still primarily on electronic machines that do have paper print-outs. I also wonder about even the states that do have paper print-outs. My understanding is that if you do a recount, that is when they make a difference, not until.
All this makes me wonder, should we sit all the electronic machines aside -- every one of them -- and go back to the old paper ballots? I joke you not. We still have many months until the election. My thought at the moment (though it could change as I learn more), is that we should.
I believe something like a dozen states (representing about 150 Electoral College votes) are still primarily on electronic machines that do have paper print-outs. I also wonder about even the states that do have paper print-outs. My understanding is that if you do a recount, that is when they make a difference, not until.
All this makes me wonder, should we sit all the electronic machines aside -- every one of them -- and go back to the old paper ballots? I joke you not. We still have many months until the election. My thought at the moment (though it could change as I learn more), is that we should.
Thursday, June 18, 2020
Patrick Harmon, Aug 13, 2017 -- Shot in Cold Blood?
Patrick Harmon, Aug. 13, 2017. That is the date police officers shot and killed him as he fled arrest after being stopped for having a missing red taillight on his bicycle.
And, it took place in Salt Lake City, no less.
Watch the video. See him bolt and get away as officers begin to cuff him. Hear what sounds like an officer saying, "I'll f------ shoot you," immediately before the man is shot as he runs away. Observe no weapon. Although officers contend he had shouted, "I'll cut you," that isn't found on the video. Plus that would be out of character for a man to yell backwards as he fled away.
Nor does a knife appear evident on the ground as the officers approach the body and handcuff him. Nor does it show them picking up a knife. Nor, as they roll his body over, searching him, does the video show officers removing a knife.
Listen as an officer says, "Find out where he's hit." Or, is that what the officer is saying?
Murder, or was it justified?
Patrick Harmon, Black. The FBI was among those who reviewed the case and then the district attorney's office cleared the police of wrongdoing.
Watching the video, my heart goes out to him. I feel somber. I wonder how anyone could justify such a killing.
(Blog rewritten 6/19/20)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnnEiWDrnxo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2WTlyaUmTc
And, it took place in Salt Lake City, no less.
Watch the video. See him bolt and get away as officers begin to cuff him. Hear what sounds like an officer saying, "I'll f------ shoot you," immediately before the man is shot as he runs away. Observe no weapon. Although officers contend he had shouted, "I'll cut you," that isn't found on the video. Plus that would be out of character for a man to yell backwards as he fled away.
Nor does a knife appear evident on the ground as the officers approach the body and handcuff him. Nor does it show them picking up a knife. Nor, as they roll his body over, searching him, does the video show officers removing a knife.
Listen as an officer says, "Find out where he's hit." Or, is that what the officer is saying?
Murder, or was it justified?
Patrick Harmon, Black. The FBI was among those who reviewed the case and then the district attorney's office cleared the police of wrongdoing.
Watching the video, my heart goes out to him. I feel somber. I wonder how anyone could justify such a killing.
(Blog rewritten 6/19/20)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnnEiWDrnxo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2WTlyaUmTc
Wednesday, June 17, 2020
Will Stand Your Ground be Unveiled? The Wait to Find Out Now Begins
Now let us wait to see if a law allowing wickedness will be unveiled for what it is. A good share of the injustice currently roiling America is likely due to this law.
In Utah, the moment of waiting began yesterday, as it was announced that the investigation into the police killing of Bernardo Palacios is complete, and the case has advanced to the office of Sim Gill.
Protesters swarmed outside of Gill's district attorney office yesterday, shouting in rage that the officers who killed Palacios must be prosecuted.
Now, to some it is clear: Palacios should not have been gunned down by police. He was fleeing in fear. He stumbled twice and picked himself up twice. He was not brandishing a weapon, for that requires that you display it in a threatening way. Palacios never pointed it at and never threatened officers with his gun. Something appears to have fallen to the ground on his second stumble. As he picked it up, one of the officers can be heard giving the go-ahead to shoot him, and a barrage of more than 20 shots crack out.
It is the moment they trained for, so we must wonder if they all just wanted their crack. Test time: Has all that training done any good?
See, there's a law that gives them the right to shoot, even that prompts them to think it is the right thing to do. Stand Your Ground, they call it, and it says that if you are fearful that if don't shoot, then the person you let live might end up harming someone else.
So, though it might intrinsically seem wrong to gun down someone who is but fleeing in fear, the gun establishment in America has convinced us that these deaths are justified.
The words from Proverbs in the Bible seem applicable: "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." (Proverbs 14:12)
So it is that we wait. Will D.A. Sim Gill charge the officers with murder? In this case, he might decide Stand Your Ground does not apply. He might decide the officers lives were not in jeopardy. Gill has faced similar cases in the past, however, and has refused to prosecute them. So, there is reason to believe he could let the officers off. But, then again, the backdrop for his decision this time is different. The whole nation is in uproar against such killings.
And, all across the nation we are now waiting to see if Stand Your Ground will be unveiled. A law that allows officers, as well as all gun owners, to gun down people they say they fear. As we consider police killings such as that of Rayshard Brooks, we now wait to see if Stand Your Ground will finally be condemned, if it will finally be unveiled as the cause of so many of the wrongful police killings (and other killings) in America.
(Blog completely overhauled and rewritten 6/18/19)
In Utah, the moment of waiting began yesterday, as it was announced that the investigation into the police killing of Bernardo Palacios is complete, and the case has advanced to the office of Sim Gill.
Protesters swarmed outside of Gill's district attorney office yesterday, shouting in rage that the officers who killed Palacios must be prosecuted.
Now, to some it is clear: Palacios should not have been gunned down by police. He was fleeing in fear. He stumbled twice and picked himself up twice. He was not brandishing a weapon, for that requires that you display it in a threatening way. Palacios never pointed it at and never threatened officers with his gun. Something appears to have fallen to the ground on his second stumble. As he picked it up, one of the officers can be heard giving the go-ahead to shoot him, and a barrage of more than 20 shots crack out.
It is the moment they trained for, so we must wonder if they all just wanted their crack. Test time: Has all that training done any good?
See, there's a law that gives them the right to shoot, even that prompts them to think it is the right thing to do. Stand Your Ground, they call it, and it says that if you are fearful that if don't shoot, then the person you let live might end up harming someone else.
So, though it might intrinsically seem wrong to gun down someone who is but fleeing in fear, the gun establishment in America has convinced us that these deaths are justified.
The words from Proverbs in the Bible seem applicable: "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." (Proverbs 14:12)
So it is that we wait. Will D.A. Sim Gill charge the officers with murder? In this case, he might decide Stand Your Ground does not apply. He might decide the officers lives were not in jeopardy. Gill has faced similar cases in the past, however, and has refused to prosecute them. So, there is reason to believe he could let the officers off. But, then again, the backdrop for his decision this time is different. The whole nation is in uproar against such killings.
And, all across the nation we are now waiting to see if Stand Your Ground will be unveiled. A law that allows officers, as well as all gun owners, to gun down people they say they fear. As we consider police killings such as that of Rayshard Brooks, we now wait to see if Stand Your Ground will finally be condemned, if it will finally be unveiled as the cause of so many of the wrongful police killings (and other killings) in America.
(Blog completely overhauled and rewritten 6/18/19)
Tuesday, June 16, 2020
Utah Might have the Worst Record for Police Killings of Blacks
I ask the lady to see the sign she is carrying. It says 10 percent of all the killings by police in Utah are of black people. And, that Utah leads the nation in the proportion of such killings.
Utah No. 1, can it be?
I come home and try to look it up. I find a map at aljazeera.com, it showing Utah one of only two states shaded dark gray, indicating they are the worst.
Can it be? Utah, a state that prides itself on its good officers. A state that suggests that while there might be racism rooted in police forces in other parts of the nation, there isn't much here.
Can it be? Here the whole nation is in uproar against such killings, and that quiet little state back west, far from the limelight, in some ways is the state that has the biggest problem.
Utah No. 1, can it be?
I come home and try to look it up. I find a map at aljazeera.com, it showing Utah one of only two states shaded dark gray, indicating they are the worst.
Can it be? Utah, a state that prides itself on its good officers. A state that suggests that while there might be racism rooted in police forces in other parts of the nation, there isn't much here.
Can it be? Here the whole nation is in uproar against such killings, and that quiet little state back west, far from the limelight, in some ways is the state that has the biggest problem.
Monday, June 15, 2020
Are We Approaching a Day of Vigilantes?
Let us be aware of the possibility of forces seeking to egg us on to an internal war in the United States. The arch right-wing points to a movement called Antifa, and speaks of the violence and havoc those of that ideology are raising in the George Floyd protest.
Let us be aware of the disinformation being disseminated, warning of CHAZ (Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone in Seattle) patrolling with guns and violence, exacting money from businesses there, etc.
If you are going to strapping on your guns, you have to have it appear your guns are needed. All the disinformation serves to give you reason
So, an arms race is brewing in the United States. There are forces that are inciting us to violence, and often they are doing it with disinformation. We have an escalation of fear of the other side, and an escalation in the chances weapons might some day be used.
Someone, somewhere might be laughing in glee at the division they are causing.
We worry about the chaos that could be created if police forces are defunded. Worry about this, as well. Worry about the possibility of a blood war erupting between the extremes on the left and on the right. One possibility is that when police forces are disbanded, the extreme right will seek to fill the void as vigilantes.
Let us be aware of the disinformation being disseminated, warning of CHAZ (Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone in Seattle) patrolling with guns and violence, exacting money from businesses there, etc.
If you are going to strapping on your guns, you have to have it appear your guns are needed. All the disinformation serves to give you reason
So, an arms race is brewing in the United States. There are forces that are inciting us to violence, and often they are doing it with disinformation. We have an escalation of fear of the other side, and an escalation in the chances weapons might some day be used.
Someone, somewhere might be laughing in glee at the division they are causing.
We worry about the chaos that could be created if police forces are defunded. Worry about this, as well. Worry about the possibility of a blood war erupting between the extremes on the left and on the right. One possibility is that when police forces are disbanded, the extreme right will seek to fill the void as vigilantes.
2nd-Degree Murder Might be Too Much for Chauvin, but 3rd-Degree Fits
Does justice in Derek Chauvin's case mean charging and/or convicting him of second-degree murder? Second-degree murder is an intentional killing. I do not know what evidence was uncovered during the investigation. Maybe evidence was found that Chauvin meant to kill George Floyd. But, from just what we see in the video, I do not see that he is intentionally trying to bring about Floyd's death.
Third-degree murder in Minnesota does not require that you are intentionally trying to kill. It does, though, require that you are acting in a way eminently dangerous to the life of another person and evincing a depraved mind. From what we see just on the video, I would think Chauvin does qualify for third-degree murder.
Third-degree murder in Minnesota does not require that you are intentionally trying to kill. It does, though, require that you are acting in a way eminently dangerous to the life of another person and evincing a depraved mind. From what we see just on the video, I would think Chauvin does qualify for third-degree murder.
Saturday, June 13, 2020
Do We Stand Over the Graves of the Dead, and Tell Them it is Their Own Fault?
I do so wonder if we are not somewhat like standing over the graves of the murdered and saying. Well, it's your own fault.
It's your own fault that we killed you. Oh, and don't bring race into this. Race had nothing to do with it.
The person might, indeed, have been killed because of their race, but we will not so much as allow it to be said.
Bless us. We mean no harm, but, it would be better if we were not this way. Oh, there are times when the person does force the police person's hand. There are times when there is no good choice but to shoot them, lest the person kill the officer instead. Let us not deny this.
But there are also those times when the trigger is pulled when it shouldn't be. And, there are those times when being black prompts the trigger to be pulled more quickly.
Do we cast our eyes upon them, so to speak, and say, If you had not been trying to get away from the cops, they wouldn't have shot you. It's quite your own fault.
Yes, there will be those times. Our concern should be that there are too many times when the life could have been spared. There are too many times when we justify taking their lives rather than really needing to do so.
It's your own fault that we killed you. Oh, and don't bring race into this. Race had nothing to do with it.
The person might, indeed, have been killed because of their race, but we will not so much as allow it to be said.
Bless us. We mean no harm, but, it would be better if we were not this way. Oh, there are times when the person does force the police person's hand. There are times when there is no good choice but to shoot them, lest the person kill the officer instead. Let us not deny this.
But there are also those times when the trigger is pulled when it shouldn't be. And, there are those times when being black prompts the trigger to be pulled more quickly.
Do we cast our eyes upon them, so to speak, and say, If you had not been trying to get away from the cops, they wouldn't have shot you. It's quite your own fault.
Yes, there will be those times. Our concern should be that there are too many times when the life could have been spared. There are too many times when we justify taking their lives rather than really needing to do so.
Is This Not a Likeness to Opposing Abortion?
Is this so different than raising our voices for the unborn, so different than opposing abortion? If abortion were ended, would not the lives of the unborn be saved?
So, if people are dying because they are black, is it so wrong to raise a voice, to demand an end to it? Could not the lives of those who are now but shadows in the future be saved if we now were to remove from our police forces all those who carry malice towards African Americans?
If we would save the lives of the unborn, let us also do what we can to save the lives of our black brothers and sisters.
So, if people are dying because they are black, is it so wrong to raise a voice, to demand an end to it? Could not the lives of those who are now but shadows in the future be saved if we now were to remove from our police forces all those who carry malice towards African Americans?
If we would save the lives of the unborn, let us also do what we can to save the lives of our black brothers and sisters.
Friday, June 12, 2020
If We Sit by and Watch, We are Somewhat Like Those Three Officers
Think of the three officers who stood silently by while the one officer killed George Floyd. Are we not somewhat like them if we do not speak out? If one of them had stepped in and stopped the killing, George Floyd would be alive today.
So it is, if we step in and demand that there be no more such killings, we might save this from happening again. If we demand that all our officers be background-checked and any who might have such tendencies be removed, we will save the lives of those who are but shadows in the future.
So, which will it be: sit by and watch, like the three officers, or step in and be part of the change that needs to take place? If we just sit by and watch, we might not be as bad, but there is a degree by which it is of the same thing.
What is the quote? The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. I'm only saying that that quote applies.
(Blog slightly altered and added to 6/13/20)
So it is, if we step in and demand that there be no more such killings, we might save this from happening again. If we demand that all our officers be background-checked and any who might have such tendencies be removed, we will save the lives of those who are but shadows in the future.
So, which will it be: sit by and watch, like the three officers, or step in and be part of the change that needs to take place? If we just sit by and watch, we might not be as bad, but there is a degree by which it is of the same thing.
What is the quote? The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. I'm only saying that that quote applies.
(Blog slightly altered and added to 6/13/20)
Thursday, June 11, 2020
Would We do but a Few Things, this Police Violence Could End
Would we but do but a few simple things, police brutality against blacks would largely come to a halt.
Just a few simple things, and we could clean out the racism from our police departments.
(One) We need police review boards that are independent of the police. When someone has a complaint, they take it to the board. And, when the board has done its investigation, it either in and of itself has power to fire the officer, or it turns the decision over to the mayor, who has that authority. The police chief can't turn the decision against an officer off at the pass. He or she has no veto power. Nor can the union or police association. Nope. They can present their case during the trial before the review board, but when the review board renders its decision, that decision stands regardless what the union or police association says.
Now, perhaps, it is unnecessary to establish these review boards. Perhaps we already have a system of justice and needn't reinvent it. Notice how when decisions come back from these review boards, suggesting officers be fired, the police unions step in, saying the person cannot be fired without due process. Well, due process implies a court. So, why not take all the hearings and complaints against officers and try them in the courts? Isn't that why we have courts, to determine if someone has done wrong by the laws and rules we have?
(Two) Dismiss any police officer who has in his or her background any racism or inclination towards undue violence. Investigate them. Start by asking them if they can say, Black lives matter. There is nothing wrong with that sentiment. If an officer cannot say, Black lives matter, at least some strain of racism likely exists within them. Then, interview their co-workers, their family, and others, and see if there is any evidence of racism or attitude of overt authoritarian police rule.
(Three) Put new policies in place on when to use force and when to use lethal force. Current policies are too liberal. Sheer them down. We need policies not so much that tell them when to shoot, as when not to shoot. Tell them, Don't shoot in this situation, or this one, or this one. Make the list as long and lengthy as can be done from thinking of and imagining times when it is overboard to use violence or force.
(Four) Train, train, train. Drill it into their heads, when they shouldn't be shooting, or using force, or ordering around the public.
(Five) Free the police, so to speak, by giving them back their moral compass. Each situation has its own nuances. Give them back the right to make use their own good judgement, instead of having to say, The rule book says do this, so I have to do it. Yes, train them, and train them, and train them, but give them the right to set aside all that training, and just be able to say, Yes, I know what the rule book says, but looking at this specific situation, I can see that that is wrong. The moral compass was long ago taken from the officers when we started teaching them that when certain conditions exist, they are within their legal rights and they should shoot to kill. We need to give them back that moral compass. If they just don't feel morally right about shooting -- even though the law might allow it -- they need to have the freedom to not shoot. If they judge in their heart that the killing isn't necessary, they shouldn't feel compelled by their training to kill someone. So, free the police from having to follow too strict of guidelines.
(Six), Place body cams on every officer and require them to use them during every arrest, and make the videos a matter of public record. It is no secret that the recording of arrests and such has led to all the outrage against police violence. If some police brutality is still escaping us, throw it into the open by having body cams in use during all arrests.
Seven, If affordable, have them quickly record every stop they make, giving the name of the person stopped, the racial appearance, reason for the stop, and short report on what happened during the stop. They have enough paperwork already, so make it so they can stop just for one quick moment, speak into a recorder, and the recorder can be downloaded later into a printer. Make the files available to the public at the police station. If done with today's technology, it could take as little as 30 seconds for the officer to speak into the recorders.
Just a few simple things, and we could clean out the racism from our police departments.
(One) We need police review boards that are independent of the police. When someone has a complaint, they take it to the board. And, when the board has done its investigation, it either in and of itself has power to fire the officer, or it turns the decision over to the mayor, who has that authority. The police chief can't turn the decision against an officer off at the pass. He or she has no veto power. Nor can the union or police association. Nope. They can present their case during the trial before the review board, but when the review board renders its decision, that decision stands regardless what the union or police association says.
Now, perhaps, it is unnecessary to establish these review boards. Perhaps we already have a system of justice and needn't reinvent it. Notice how when decisions come back from these review boards, suggesting officers be fired, the police unions step in, saying the person cannot be fired without due process. Well, due process implies a court. So, why not take all the hearings and complaints against officers and try them in the courts? Isn't that why we have courts, to determine if someone has done wrong by the laws and rules we have?
(Two) Dismiss any police officer who has in his or her background any racism or inclination towards undue violence. Investigate them. Start by asking them if they can say, Black lives matter. There is nothing wrong with that sentiment. If an officer cannot say, Black lives matter, at least some strain of racism likely exists within them. Then, interview their co-workers, their family, and others, and see if there is any evidence of racism or attitude of overt authoritarian police rule.
(Three) Put new policies in place on when to use force and when to use lethal force. Current policies are too liberal. Sheer them down. We need policies not so much that tell them when to shoot, as when not to shoot. Tell them, Don't shoot in this situation, or this one, or this one. Make the list as long and lengthy as can be done from thinking of and imagining times when it is overboard to use violence or force.
(Four) Train, train, train. Drill it into their heads, when they shouldn't be shooting, or using force, or ordering around the public.
(Five) Free the police, so to speak, by giving them back their moral compass. Each situation has its own nuances. Give them back the right to make use their own good judgement, instead of having to say, The rule book says do this, so I have to do it. Yes, train them, and train them, and train them, but give them the right to set aside all that training, and just be able to say, Yes, I know what the rule book says, but looking at this specific situation, I can see that that is wrong. The moral compass was long ago taken from the officers when we started teaching them that when certain conditions exist, they are within their legal rights and they should shoot to kill. We need to give them back that moral compass. If they just don't feel morally right about shooting -- even though the law might allow it -- they need to have the freedom to not shoot. If they judge in their heart that the killing isn't necessary, they shouldn't feel compelled by their training to kill someone. So, free the police from having to follow too strict of guidelines.
(Six), Place body cams on every officer and require them to use them during every arrest, and make the videos a matter of public record. It is no secret that the recording of arrests and such has led to all the outrage against police violence. If some police brutality is still escaping us, throw it into the open by having body cams in use during all arrests.
Seven, If affordable, have them quickly record every stop they make, giving the name of the person stopped, the racial appearance, reason for the stop, and short report on what happened during the stop. They have enough paperwork already, so make it so they can stop just for one quick moment, speak into a recorder, and the recorder can be downloaded later into a printer. Make the files available to the public at the police station. If done with today's technology, it could take as little as 30 seconds for the officer to speak into the recorders.
Wednesday, June 10, 2020
The Protests Need a New Direction; Here's What it Should be
The moment is getting away from us, as protesters. We thought that with having so many people behind us, finally police violence against black people would be brought to a screeching halt.
Then, the whole movement got hijacked.
The signs saying, Black Lives Matter, were still there, but they became fewer and fewer. In their place: More and more signs saying, Defund the Police. Those instigating this message show at the protests, and distribute these signs among the protesters. Those who didn't bring signs are only welcome that someone is giving them to them. I mean, every good protester needs a sign, don't they? Who is going to turn one down?
Naturally enough, since that is the message down at the protests, the media rightfully jumps on it, and soon the whole nation is discussing defunding the police.
One or two things are vitally needed:
One, a different solution. So, we have to have an alternative solution. If defunding the police is the only one on the table, all the discussion goes there. But, if there is another solution getting wide play at the protests, then it can also be tossed around in the media.
Two (and this dovetails into the first thing needed, so maybe you say there is just one), More people with this alternative view are needed down at the protests. We need someone there who will carry the message. The representation of those there needs to be more predominantly of those who do not favor the message of defunding the police.
And, what should the message be, instead of defunding the police? Let's put four prongs in it:
One, Police review boards that are independent of the police agency. If the board concludes a police member should be dismissed from the staff, the police chief or police association should not have authority to overrule that.
Two, Fire them. Fire any police officer who has in his background any racism or inclination to be unduly violent. Interview them all. To begin with, if they cannot say black lives matter, fire them. There is nothing wrong with the sentiment that black lives matter. If they can't say it, at least a strain of racism probably exists. Then, interview their co-workers, their family, and others, and see if any evidence of racism or overly authoritarian attitudes exist.
Three, Place new policies in place on when to use force and when to use lethal force. The current policies are too liberal. Change them. Then, train, train, train.
Four, Free the police. Give them back their moral compasses. With all the rules you set in place, tell them more than any rule, what is important is to do what is right. Each situation might be a little different. Rather than following a rule to a T, let them look at the situation and be able to say, No, despite what the book says, killing this guy isn't right. The rules might say I can, but I can see it isn't necessary.
(Blog slightly altered 6/11/20)
Then, the whole movement got hijacked.
The signs saying, Black Lives Matter, were still there, but they became fewer and fewer. In their place: More and more signs saying, Defund the Police. Those instigating this message show at the protests, and distribute these signs among the protesters. Those who didn't bring signs are only welcome that someone is giving them to them. I mean, every good protester needs a sign, don't they? Who is going to turn one down?
Naturally enough, since that is the message down at the protests, the media rightfully jumps on it, and soon the whole nation is discussing defunding the police.
One or two things are vitally needed:
One, a different solution. So, we have to have an alternative solution. If defunding the police is the only one on the table, all the discussion goes there. But, if there is another solution getting wide play at the protests, then it can also be tossed around in the media.
Two (and this dovetails into the first thing needed, so maybe you say there is just one), More people with this alternative view are needed down at the protests. We need someone there who will carry the message. The representation of those there needs to be more predominantly of those who do not favor the message of defunding the police.
And, what should the message be, instead of defunding the police? Let's put four prongs in it:
One, Police review boards that are independent of the police agency. If the board concludes a police member should be dismissed from the staff, the police chief or police association should not have authority to overrule that.
Two, Fire them. Fire any police officer who has in his background any racism or inclination to be unduly violent. Interview them all. To begin with, if they cannot say black lives matter, fire them. There is nothing wrong with the sentiment that black lives matter. If they can't say it, at least a strain of racism probably exists. Then, interview their co-workers, their family, and others, and see if any evidence of racism or overly authoritarian attitudes exist.
Three, Place new policies in place on when to use force and when to use lethal force. The current policies are too liberal. Change them. Then, train, train, train.
Four, Free the police. Give them back their moral compasses. With all the rules you set in place, tell them more than any rule, what is important is to do what is right. Each situation might be a little different. Rather than following a rule to a T, let them look at the situation and be able to say, No, despite what the book says, killing this guy isn't right. The rules might say I can, but I can see it isn't necessary.
(Blog slightly altered 6/11/20)
Tuesday, June 9, 2020
America is being Shaped, and to be Part of It, Get Down to the Protests
Those setting on the sidelines as this great American protesting is going on -- those only watching from their TV and the Internet -- are direly needed right down at the protests.
Direly.
Hop off your duff and come running. America is being shaped, and if you want to be part of the shaping, this is where it's at. Yes, I know you think the voting booth is the place to make your impact. That's wonderful and all, but this isn't going to wait till November. This is being decided, in great part, on the streets. Now.
So, skip right on down to your local protest. Hesitate not.
Oh, it is being discussed in the media and writing letters to the editor and offering your thoughts on social media are wonderful and all. You can contribute that way, yes.
But the messages in the media are being generated from what is happening on the streets. Those who are running the protests are setting the message. Defunding the police is increasingly becoming the central message. If your thoughts run counter to defunding the police, it would be helpful if you would come on down and speak out, if just speaking to the other protesters and telling them why you don't think that is a good idea.
The decision-makers of today -- a large chunk of them on this issue -- are down at the rallies. If you would have any influence on them, get out and talk to them.
(Slight changes made 6/10/20)
Direly.
Hop off your duff and come running. America is being shaped, and if you want to be part of the shaping, this is where it's at. Yes, I know you think the voting booth is the place to make your impact. That's wonderful and all, but this isn't going to wait till November. This is being decided, in great part, on the streets. Now.
So, skip right on down to your local protest. Hesitate not.
Oh, it is being discussed in the media and writing letters to the editor and offering your thoughts on social media are wonderful and all. You can contribute that way, yes.
But the messages in the media are being generated from what is happening on the streets. Those who are running the protests are setting the message. Defunding the police is increasingly becoming the central message. If your thoughts run counter to defunding the police, it would be helpful if you would come on down and speak out, if just speaking to the other protesters and telling them why you don't think that is a good idea.
The decision-makers of today -- a large chunk of them on this issue -- are down at the rallies. If you would have any influence on them, get out and talk to them.
(Slight changes made 6/10/20)
Monday, June 8, 2020
More Than Anything, an Officer Needs to Judge What's Right and Do It
Roll back the rules, and bring on good reasoning. Would that when an officer faced a situation, he could call on his moral compass to see him through. Oh, give them guidelines. Teach them when and when not to use force. But, let them understand that every situation is a little bit different, and more than anything, they need to just size up what is going on and do the right thing. More than anything, they need to just consider what is right and what is wrong, and choose the right.
I think of Bernardo Palacios, fleeing from the police in fear, tripping and scrambling back up, only to stumble and fall again, never threatening police with his gun, but perhaps it dropping from a pocket as he falls, and he appears to pick something up. The training of an officer might say you shoot and you shoot to kill in such a situation; He has a gun. The rule book now gives me the right to kill him. But, I wonder if a moral compass suggests you can tell he isn't going to use the gun, and you don't shoot. You at least wait until there is further provocation.
Officers need two things when they go on the streets. They need a badge to give them the right to be there, and they need a moral compass so they won't mess up while they are on those streets. All the training is great, but it cannot replace the moral compass.
(Blog slightly revised June 10, 2020)
I think of Bernardo Palacios, fleeing from the police in fear, tripping and scrambling back up, only to stumble and fall again, never threatening police with his gun, but perhaps it dropping from a pocket as he falls, and he appears to pick something up. The training of an officer might say you shoot and you shoot to kill in such a situation; He has a gun. The rule book now gives me the right to kill him. But, I wonder if a moral compass suggests you can tell he isn't going to use the gun, and you don't shoot. You at least wait until there is further provocation.
Officers need two things when they go on the streets. They need a badge to give them the right to be there, and they need a moral compass so they won't mess up while they are on those streets. All the training is great, but it cannot replace the moral compass.
(Blog slightly revised June 10, 2020)
Even bigots should be loved towards their correction instead of hated deeper into it
(Index -- My quotes)
Sunday, June 7, 2020
If We Don't Realize this is Wrong, or We Will Never Overcome Police Brutality
If we don't realize the killing of Bernardo Palacios was wrong, we will never overcome police brutality. Being loyal to our police is good. Remembering that they put their lives on the line every time they put on a badge is good. But we cannot rationalize any longer that killings such as that of Bernardo Palacios are justified. He was a criminal, we say. If he had gotten loose, he might have killed someone. If you run from the cops, you deserve to be killed.
No, Bernardo Palacios should not have been killed. He had his back to the police. He was running in defense. He was scared. He was stumbling and falling and getting up again, only to stumble and fall again. He was slow and lumbering as he fled. He was not brandishing his gun. He was not threatening the cops with it. Why would we shoot and kill such a person?
If we as a nation are to end police injustice, we must come to recognize it when we see it. We somehow must reach a point where understand this is wrong. We must set aside our previous belief that it is okay, and acknowledge that it is not.
No, Bernardo Palacios should not have been killed. He had his back to the police. He was running in defense. He was scared. He was stumbling and falling and getting up again, only to stumble and fall again. He was slow and lumbering as he fled. He was not brandishing his gun. He was not threatening the cops with it. Why would we shoot and kill such a person?
If we as a nation are to end police injustice, we must come to recognize it when we see it. We somehow must reach a point where understand this is wrong. We must set aside our previous belief that it is okay, and acknowledge that it is not.
Friday, June 5, 2020
Maybe Police Violence Would be Down if Matt Dillon Made the Arrests
Wish I could speak to a real good buff of old Western TV shows right now, someone who could remember how Matt Dillon, the Lone Ranger, or Roy Rogers went about arresting someone. I'm thinking they didn't shoot them in the back as they fled away. I'm thinking they didn't say, "Raise your hands," as the criminal laid dying in the streets. I'm thinking they didn't shoot them 20 more times just to make sure they were dead.
Looking back at the old TV shows is relevant. How Matt Dillon, and the Lone Ranger, and Roy Rogers went about doing it reflects the mores of our society at the time the movies were made. Have our mores changed? Do we justify a lot of things today that would not have been acceptable 50 years ago?
I'm thinking there would be a lot fewer police killings if Matt Dillon, the Lone Ranger, and Roy Rogers were making the arrests.
Looking back at the old TV shows is relevant. How Matt Dillon, and the Lone Ranger, and Roy Rogers went about doing it reflects the mores of our society at the time the movies were made. Have our mores changed? Do we justify a lot of things today that would not have been acceptable 50 years ago?
I'm thinking there would be a lot fewer police killings if Matt Dillon, the Lone Ranger, and Roy Rogers were making the arrests.
Thursday, June 4, 2020
A Prophet Calls the Nation to Repentance
I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. A few days ago, our prophet, Russell M. Nelson, released a statement in which he spoke in regards to the George Floyd affair (though he did not mention Floyd by name) and the protesting that has grown out of it.
It took a few days before the significance of what President Nelson had done sunk in on me.
As members of this church, we believe in the Book of Mormon. It repeatedly tells accounts of the people becoming wicked and of God's prophets calling them to repentance.
In many ways, in today's world, the leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ repeatedly call the world to repentance. Every General Conference, they call us to repentance.
But, there perhaps is added significance when the prophet looks at the events of the nation and takes the pulse of what is going on, and diagnoses it as wickedness. There is (to me), significance when he looks at those things and cries, "Repent!"
It reminds me of the stories from the Book of Mormon.
There are those who would deny that racism exists in America. They were abundant before George Floyd. Their ranks may be trimmed, but they are still out there.
But, the prophet would not be telling us to repent of racism, if there were no racism to repent of.
Let's read the first three paragraphs of what President Nelson said.
"We join with many throughout this nation and around the world who are deeply saddened at recent evidences of racism and a blatant disregard for human life. We abhor the reality that some would deny others respect and the most basic of freedoms because of the color of his or her skin.
"We are also saddened when these assaults on human dignity lead to escalating violence and unrest.
"The Creator of us all calls on each of us to abandon attitudes of prejudice against any group of God's children. Any of us who has prejudice toward another race needs to repent!"
Just as in times of old, a prophet has looked at the sins of the nation, and called for the nation to repent.
It took a few days before the significance of what President Nelson had done sunk in on me.
As members of this church, we believe in the Book of Mormon. It repeatedly tells accounts of the people becoming wicked and of God's prophets calling them to repentance.
In many ways, in today's world, the leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ repeatedly call the world to repentance. Every General Conference, they call us to repentance.
But, there perhaps is added significance when the prophet looks at the events of the nation and takes the pulse of what is going on, and diagnoses it as wickedness. There is (to me), significance when he looks at those things and cries, "Repent!"
It reminds me of the stories from the Book of Mormon.
There are those who would deny that racism exists in America. They were abundant before George Floyd. Their ranks may be trimmed, but they are still out there.
But, the prophet would not be telling us to repent of racism, if there were no racism to repent of.
Let's read the first three paragraphs of what President Nelson said.
"We join with many throughout this nation and around the world who are deeply saddened at recent evidences of racism and a blatant disregard for human life. We abhor the reality that some would deny others respect and the most basic of freedoms because of the color of his or her skin.
"We are also saddened when these assaults on human dignity lead to escalating violence and unrest.
"The Creator of us all calls on each of us to abandon attitudes of prejudice against any group of God's children. Any of us who has prejudice toward another race needs to repent!"
Just as in times of old, a prophet has looked at the sins of the nation, and called for the nation to repent.
Wednesday, June 3, 2020
Before There was George Floyd, There was Alvin Itula
Before there was George Floyd, there was Alvin Itula. In Utah.
Place the stories side-by-side, and go ahead and marvel a little at how the stories mirror each other.
Four officers were involved in both arrests
In both, an officer placed a foot on the victim's neck.
In both, the victim pleaded repeatedly that he couldn't breathe.
In both, the victim then quit moving and was taken to the hospital and pronounced dead.
Somewhere in heaven, perhaps, George Floyd and this Utah man, Alvin Itula, are comparing notes.
We can say it couldn't happen in Utah, but it did. We can say Utah officers are trained better than this, but they weren't.
Floyd's killing is fresh on the nation's mind, and the nation is roiling in outrage and protest. Itula's? Long forgotten and didn't make much of a ripple. Way back in 2006. If there were any public protesting, it is not to be found on an Internet search.
Tell me, though, would this not be a moment to pay tribute to Alvin Itula? To remember him? To allow him to be added him to the cause for outrage? Often, as we read the signs of protesters here at the Salt Lake City protests, the names of racial victims of police brutality are listed. "Say my name," the signs say, and they list name-after-name without mentioning Alvin Itula, one of Utah's own.
Justice for George Floyd? I say, let's also have justice for Alvin Itula. Let's demand that police agencies in Utah be cleared of any officers who would use excessive force on people of color or anyone.
Place the stories side-by-side, and go ahead and marvel a little at how the stories mirror each other.
Four officers were involved in both arrests
In both, an officer placed a foot on the victim's neck.
In both, the victim pleaded repeatedly that he couldn't breathe.
In both, the victim then quit moving and was taken to the hospital and pronounced dead.
Somewhere in heaven, perhaps, George Floyd and this Utah man, Alvin Itula, are comparing notes.
We can say it couldn't happen in Utah, but it did. We can say Utah officers are trained better than this, but they weren't.
Floyd's killing is fresh on the nation's mind, and the nation is roiling in outrage and protest. Itula's? Long forgotten and didn't make much of a ripple. Way back in 2006. If there were any public protesting, it is not to be found on an Internet search.
Tell me, though, would this not be a moment to pay tribute to Alvin Itula? To remember him? To allow him to be added him to the cause for outrage? Often, as we read the signs of protesters here at the Salt Lake City protests, the names of racial victims of police brutality are listed. "Say my name," the signs say, and they list name-after-name without mentioning Alvin Itula, one of Utah's own.
Justice for George Floyd? I say, let's also have justice for Alvin Itula. Let's demand that police agencies in Utah be cleared of any officers who would use excessive force on people of color or anyone.
Three Suggestions to Help End Police Violence
Three suggestions from my political party, the United Utah Party, to help end the police violence:
One, Equip every police officer in Utah with a bodycam.
Two, Require that police officers report every stop. People of color often report that they are being stopped as a form of harassment.
Three, Require that all police departments have civilian review boards to review complaints against police.
One, Equip every police officer in Utah with a bodycam.
Two, Require that police officers report every stop. People of color often report that they are being stopped as a form of harassment.
Three, Require that all police departments have civilian review boards to review complaints against police.
Tuesday, June 2, 2020
Justice for George Floyd Includes Ending Qualified Immunity
If George Floyd is ever to have justice, that old Supreme Court decision from 1967 has got to go. Back then, the court decided that government officials -- now, that includes police officers -- should be shielded from being sued for "discretionary' actions they take while performing their jobs.
You know, like doing something that brings death to someone they're arresting. I would guess placing a knee on George Floyd's neck might fit into this.
The obvious criticism is that the principle, known as qualified immunity, has become a fail-safe way to dismiss police brutality.
With fortune, the issue might, indeed, be being addressed. The Supreme Court might announce as early as Monday that it is going to consider the issue of qualified immunity for police officers. And, in Congress, there is a bill to end qualified immunity.
You know, like doing something that brings death to someone they're arresting. I would guess placing a knee on George Floyd's neck might fit into this.
The obvious criticism is that the principle, known as qualified immunity, has become a fail-safe way to dismiss police brutality.
With fortune, the issue might, indeed, be being addressed. The Supreme Court might announce as early as Monday that it is going to consider the issue of qualified immunity for police officers. And, in Congress, there is a bill to end qualified immunity.
If a President Cannot Say Black Lives Matter, it Dishonors the Presidency
"We need a president to come out and say simply that 'Black Lives Matter.' Just say those three words. But he won't and he can't." -- San Antonio Spurs Coach Gregg Popovich
I do not know that this is true, that President Trump cannot bring himself to utter the words, Black Lives Matter. But, if it is, that is a problem.
There is nothing wrong with the sentiment that black lives matter. No person should be ashamed to say. If a person can't bring themselves to say it, then, yes, it does stand as a strong indicator that person is a racist. Yes, every police officer who cannot bring themselves to earnestly say black lives matter ought to be fired.
And, if we ought to be firing every officer who cannot say black lives matter, then what of our president? To be honest, the roles of police officers are such that with them having rule over live and death, it is more important that they can say black lives matter than it is that the president can.
Still, it dishonors the office he holds if he cannot say it. And, it does expose him as a racist.
I do not know that this is true, that President Trump cannot bring himself to utter the words, Black Lives Matter. But, if it is, that is a problem.
There is nothing wrong with the sentiment that black lives matter. No person should be ashamed to say. If a person can't bring themselves to say it, then, yes, it does stand as a strong indicator that person is a racist. Yes, every police officer who cannot bring themselves to earnestly say black lives matter ought to be fired.
And, if we ought to be firing every officer who cannot say black lives matter, then what of our president? To be honest, the roles of police officers are such that with them having rule over live and death, it is more important that they can say black lives matter than it is that the president can.
Still, it dishonors the office he holds if he cannot say it. And, it does expose him as a racist.
Monday, June 1, 2020
'All Lives Matter' is like a hospital without triage
Blood squirting from a bullet hole in his chest, Tim Skurps found himself in a long line that day. The violence across the city and a virus spreading like wildfire combined to overwhelm the city's lone hospital.
The line stretched far down the hall. Tim was feeling faint, and knew he could succumb at any moment, so he desperately worked his way through the line to the front, where the medics awaited.
"Sir, I need help," he uttered through weak lips.
"You'll have to wait," came the answer.
"Sir, if you don't mind, my life matters," Tim said.
The medic looked at the person he had just finished with. "Just a cough, son. You can go on home." He looked at the next person in line and asked how he could help.
"I think I sprained my ankle," the lady said.
Tim was still standing there. He appealed for help once again. "Sir, please help me. Please, sir. I'm dying. My life matters."
The medic looked at the long line of patients and motioned his arm toward them. "See all these people?" he asked. "All lives matter. And, so I'm going to treat them all equal and take each one in the order they come."
Tim just stood there in disbelief.
"Did you hear me?" the medic asked. "Did you hear me? I said all lives matter. Go back and get in line."
Tim turned and proceeded to return to his spot in the line. As he did, his voice faintly uttered, "But, my life should matter. My life should matter more than this."
"I heard that!" the medic shouted. And, he mockingly began to chant, "All lives matter, All lives Matter, All lives matter," as his eyes followed Tim returning to his spot. He then laughed a little, and returned to his work by calling the next person in line.
Blood squirting from a bullet hole in his chest, Tim Skurps found himself in a long line that day. The violence across the city and a virus spreading like wildfire combined to overwhelm the city's lone hospital.
The line stretched far down the hall. Tim was feeling faint, and knew he could succumb at any moment, so he desperately worked his way through the line to the front, where the medics awaited.
"Sir, I need help," he uttered through weak lips.
"You'll have to wait," came the answer.
"Sir, if you don't mind, my life matters," Tim said.
The medic looked at the person he had just finished with. "Just a cough, son. You can go on home." He looked at the next person in line and asked how he could help.
"I think I sprained my ankle," the lady said.
Tim was still standing there. He appealed for help once again. "Sir, please help me. Please, sir. I'm dying. My life matters."
The medic looked at the long line of patients and motioned his arm toward them. "See all these people?" he asked. "All lives matter. And, so I'm going to treat them all equal and take each one in the order they come."
Tim just stood there in disbelief.
"Did you hear me?" the medic asked. "Did you hear me? I said all lives matter. Go back and get in line."
Tim turned and proceeded to return to his spot in the line. As he did, his voice faintly uttered, "But, my life should matter. My life should matter more than this."
"I heard that!" the medic shouted. And, he mockingly began to chant, "All lives matter, All lives Matter, All lives matter," as his eyes followed Tim returning to his spot. He then laughed a little, and returned to his work by calling the next person in line.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)